moosmum

Read this and quite impressed with the thought and reseach. Might not be "Perfect" but I think its a very common sense approach that will encourage better out comes in more than the target area. Puppoochie, It does address your concerns.Better resources to to enforce the exsisting laws and thus harder to go under the radar.Encourages a more community -responsible attitude and education that would result in well informed peer pressure and ease of reporting.More uniform legislation and so less confusion of protocols.Clear expectations of whats involved in responsible dog ownership. Looks good to me and will have my vote unless you can come up with better?!

So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I can understand where Pockets is coming from.I was there too last nite after seeing this trivialised you wonder ...But bottom line is still we need education and enforcement of laws that do make a difference regardless. Even if B.S.L worked,the problems will remain with other dogs of all sizes and types owned by irresponsible owners who can't recognise their dogs potential to do harm,or their responsibility to avoid it. As for the govt. outlawing backyard and unregistered breeders,that would 1st require breed registries to move with the times,accept that cross breeds will always be in demand and creating some thing like appendix registries to cater for that in a responsible way.Would also deflect a lot of critcism of elitism and fallout from P.D.E.since they could argue they have "controll groups" to measure effectiveness of breeding practices.

I supose they could possibly have escaped from containment some how,unbeiliavable this situation to allowed to be a possibility. A nightmare for all those touched by this.

Its the wise move. :laugh:

Default beahvior..? it depends on the situation, you can't say that a dog that has never done anything wrong or displayed aggression has a default behavior, if it did then it would've shown it many times!! Hunting dogs do not have blinding aggression, i have no idea where you get your ideas from from?! Unbalanced dogs of any breed are a problem. not just bull breeds, you need to get your head around that. My reference to default behaviour is aggression of unsocialised dogs which some seem to think is the case, nothing to do with situations either all unsocialised dogs are aggressive or they are not?? Yes, unbalanced dogs of any breed are a potential problem in the community I agree, but there is difference, unbalanced pure breeds by the standard are duds, unbalanced dogs with no standard to follow as in cross breeds could be just that, a poor genetic combination of breed mixtures. So,your solution is to ban cross breds.Any bites after that are o.k 'cos they are just boo boos.Ooops! No one here has said all unsocialised dogs are aggressive. Given the lack of skill the average person has in interpreting dog behaviour,I think your assertion that well bred,sound dogs don't need socialisation is irresponsible and dangerous.

The only valid qualifications I am aware of is a veterinary behaviourist, that's not me, experience training 38 years........what comments are you referring to here?? M-Sass might have 38 yrs experience training their own dogs.

The way I see it,ignorance of dog behaviour and desirable traits for task is pretty universal,and getting worse. I resent that It took me 6 years to find dogs able to do the job there was once a breed bred for.I fought against the idea of crosses untill there was one in front of me I could not disregard.And you know what? Her traits carry reliably.I have traits that people tell me are not possible.Its not how it works.This dog and her off spring have qualities I've not seen in 30 years and blows me out,and the owners of her pups.Yes,I've monitored them. Its been an education for me and changed the way I see things. We still have lots to learn about both cross and pure breeds and I seriously doubt closing that door is a wise move.

Sorry but that is ridiculous. Completely laughable. Maybe your "ideal" dog is like this, but most "real" dogs will have something or other or certain situations that they feel uncomfortable with or are even afraid of. They are dogs, not robots. Yes I agree in a perfect world that should be the case, but on the other hand I can see why the type of dogs who fall victim to a lack of owner control and management posing a danger to the community become targets for irradication in the stance for saftey. If we eradicate the type or breed of dog that they like to use now they will simply move onto something else. German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, these are all purebreds and they have all previously been in the same situation as the Pitbull is in now. Labradors have not had their reputation marred by lowlife owners as these breeds have, however, they still have fairly high numbers in most bite stats I ahve laid eyes on so far. Where does this leave your argument that purebreds don't ever bite? Pretty sure I've read a news article about a pomeranian killing a baby before and even my breed of choice, the Weimaraner, has caused fatalities. Not so long ago a toddler in the US was bitten on the neck by the family's Wei and died. None of these dogs are even bull breeds at all. I also don't get the feeling that you like dogs in general very much. Maybe you should just stay away from them, you miht feel a lot safer... I am speaking "aggression" in my comment of stable dogs not needing socialisation, do you think the default behaviour of all unsocialised dogs is aggression...........it's not trust me?? GSD, Rott's, Dobe's etc are not hunting dogs with blinding aggression, the reason they don't use them for those roles, big difference between guarding instinct and killing machines. Morons won't use herders to provide the aggression they are looking for because they have to train them or find fear biters and what breeders of constantly hard herders trainable in defence and attack will sell to morons??. Pure breeds have a recognised standard..........unstable aggression is a breed fault in the major working breeds, there is a defence to their existance if the odd one does bite someone, but what's the standard for a Bully crossbreed which may be killing machine who knows, where is the defence in the standards of a crossbreed?? Yes,pure breeds have recognised standard....Not always adhered to by breeders.Recent attacks by samoyds a good example. Standard says they should "display affection for all mankind" So,standards are a matter for individual breeders whether you talk pure or cross bred.All too often standards are followed cosmeticaly only and the spirit in which they were written has been lost.This is why we see the split between working and show lines widening. You can't say that anyone breeding crosses has no standard in mind,or that there is a breed to suit any purpose that can't be improved on.Especialy when "purpose" has been largely untested in most show lines for as long as it has. Blind aggression is not encouraged in working dogs ,no,but a dogs black out in prey too,and often with less warning on triggers. You say those breeding security type dogs wouldn't sell to morons- but police in some states are getting their dogs as re-homes from the general public now.

Ummmm are you for real... this maybe possible with some breeds, Again what's with the "crap" dogs comments? do you even like dogs as a whole? Socialising dogs is the smart way to help your dog become socially acceptable to the masses who put certain criteria on them. What do you think will happen if you take a dog that was bred for stability then, you didn't socialise it, mistreated it etc.. do you think that dog has the potential to bite? of course it has. I've seen "byb" dogs that are rock solid around strangers, no issues with food, good with kids etc... but one dog didn't like the sound of plastic bags... fireworks didn't set her off but shopping bags did, this certainly didn't make her a poor dog. How many pure bred dogs do you know that are rock solid on fire works night? guess all the ones who are scared must be BYB or something..? (Sorry Geo,not at you.Just not good with this quote thing) Well there goes a major argument against puppy mills.All they need to do is find stable dogs that don't need socialising tho' they could get around that by lobotomising them.That might pass for the same thing) Incidentaly,I searched over 6 years to find dogs suited to my situation.Rang breed clubs for my breed many times,even contacted police and defence forces since "my" breed had in the past been very active in those fields.Not any more and was told by breed club I "wouldn't get one like that" ( able to be good with children and animals to free range on farm,yet remain actively protective as opposed to vicious) I have cross breeds now who do the job beautifully.I see great breeders trying hard to reverse the situation (and fervently hope they succeed,they have my admirration and 100% support)but I have yet to find a breeder who can guarantee me the stability I have found for my situation and keep working ability. Since you mention working dogs. The big thing many security peeps are focusing on these days is high prey,useless for my situation and not needed. We need room in both legislation and breeder trends to allow alternative ideals to be explored.

Saw 1 pet shop that kept 8 week old pups for breeders in large pens full of straw and little dog houses in the centre.Pens were big enough for pups to escape prying hands and in a quiet area. Breeders took pups home end of day and interest registered to be passed on to owners for any resulting sales and vetting.Up to 2 litters at a time only and by arangement,with a limmit how many days pups would be displayed,often with breed information supplied and displayed. It was different.

Handwritten cardboard sign attached to a light pole saying 'staffie pups 4 sale'? :laugh:

Who's denying anything??????? Sorks has been called a troll simply for having a diferent view.looks like denial of alternatives to me. Please don't tar all of us with the same brush. I'm all for robust debate on such issues but pet shops as a decent alternative to breeders selling? Does anyone here honestly think that the sale of pups in pet shops is a GOOD thing? If so, please outline your argument with canine welfare at the forefront of the positives. Seriously, how would pet shop staff even know the personalities of the pups they sell? They don't observe them over the course of 8 weeks and they are contained in a manner that limits natural behaviours. And if the mother of the pups is the best lead on how they will turn out, how does buying a pup having never seen either parent or the conditions in which it was raised assist a buyer to make a good choice? I'm not taring all with the same brush,but trying to point out that all alternatives to pedigree breeders are tarred with the same brush.,no matter what what efforts they might make to be other wise.If we tell people how evil pet shops are,and they should be buying from ethical,registered breeders and they get bitten how do we come out ahead by that? It would surely be better if efforts made to bann every thing were channelled into informing people what a well raised pup should be receiving and why.They would be better equipt to make good choices.

Who's denying anything??????? Sorks has been called a troll simply for having a diferent view.looks like denial of alternatives to me.

Just because a member has a difference of opinion it doesn't make them a troll! Yet when someone signs up just to post in one thread about that one opinion, loudly, it does make them a troll. Lots of people lurk without signing up. When they see a thread of interest they join to contribute. She is not breeder bashing. It's a fact, registered breeders do get parvo. Hardly. Sorks has also posted about their dog and pancreatitis. Trolling? I think not. Sorks is not running around saying all breeders are the scum of the earth. They are simply stating facts. There are bad ones out there (just as there are good ones). God forbid that someone should be allowed to say that they've had a raw deal from a registered breeder *eye rolly man* I know I have! I've had good ones too. If I post about my bad experiences it is not breeder bashing or trolling, just stating fact. I agree Clyde Me too. There are plenty of justifiable complaints against registered breeders too.Taken as whole,more people get bitten than is admitted,yet only a few radicals who aren't taken seriously by any one call for a total ban on pedigree breeders. Dolers prefer to dwell on negative feed back they get and forget the support they also receive far out weighs the negative. Its too easy here to push the pedigree ideal at the expense of others,not on its own merrits. Pedigree is best for a whole lot of reasons,but only if the problems are addressed,and that doesn't seem to be happening. While there is whole lot going on in the dog world I can't stomach,its not issolated to any one group,and no group is perfect,but on Dol the idea is pushed that excellence ,ethics and standards can't exsist out side of pedigree circles.Anyone elses efforts to do better are not permitted to see light of day,no matter what could be learned from it. Better practices should be encouraged and recognised when they occur,not denied?!

Whoa! This place is full of genetics deniers. (I'm responding, not to m-sass, above, but those who have flamed m-sass) No question that the problem of dog attacks has genetic component. I don't mean breed-specific . . . I mean pedigree specific. Breeders of any sort who don't put temperament high on their list of priorities, or who deliberately breed for low bite threshold and high drive, produce dogs that are more likely to do harm. These days it's almost harder to find a goldie who is a natural retriever (and I don't mean tennis balls) than it is to find one who has deep problems with resource guarding. I've met more than a few dogs from 'herding' breeds who would be clueless faced with a flock or herd, but have loads of drive and are inclined to nip. You don't have to look too hard to find a conformation show breeder who will overlook unstable temperament in a dog with good show prospects. I know a show breeder who pts'd an imported show dog (titled, to boot) because the dog maimed a puppy. How many breeders would do this? I doubt it's more than one in five. It's unfortunate we can't know more about the dog who killed Ayen Chol. Who bred him? What were his lines? What happened to his littermates? I'm not saying that heredity caused this attack, just that the possibility should be considered. If some idiot breeder is placing mean, powerful dogs with owners who are not in a position to manage them, said idiot at least deserves to be named and shamed. The other side of the coin is that the management capabilities of the average pet owner have declined. Yards have gotten smaller. The number of homes with an adult at home during the day has gone down. Walking the dog has ceased to be a normal kids chore. I don't believe M sass is being targeted for comments Re breeding practices being often to blame,but for the contention that if breeding is left to pedigree breeders the problems will disapear,and that non pedigree breeders should not exsist. There are mistakes being made in breeding,full stop.Its not helpfull to foster the us Vs them attitude if change and imporovement in out comes are to made. The same rules should apply across the board where "quality control" is concerned,without exemptions made for pedigree dogs or nothing is acomplished. Management capabilities I think are a huge issue,with inapropriate choices being made by too many owners with little understanding of the types of dog they choose or their management.

ok but what im getting at is this. Do they seriously think a pedigree on a piece of paper includes a dog from being aggressive? Just dont understand the reasoning if they think all bully dogs are inherently aggressive why not papered amstaffs as well? Could be an argument worth exploring in the courts to defend some of the inocent cross breeds?

Pitbull's and look a likes are a restricted breed with the same houing requirements as declared dangerous dogs, they are supposed to be muzzled in public to begin with so if they are biting someone to death there is a muzzle breach could be a justification for jail where non restricted/dangerous breeds don't have muzzle requirements? Are you serious?, you think the BYB's put in the same efforts to breed a quality healthy dog as the dedicated registered breeders Are you saying if we only have pedigree dogs to choose from there won't be ever be another Ayen Chol!?! And that no one who breeds a cross bred deliberately can have a long term goal or be working towards anything worthy? Do you think evolution and development has been served,all finished in pedigree dogs only ? And that it can only get better regardless of issues that are only beginning to be understood ? O.K.

I would have thought they need to target irresponsible owners who don't controll their dogs,or understand the needs and potentials of their choices. How do you now define "backyard " breeders? Could be even more difficult than defining a puppy mill. And why on earth do you seem to think pedigree dogs are in such great shape we can dispense with every thing else. Better breeding practices are needed all 'round.

Is there another contact for you off DOL? 2 of my dogs owners may be happy to tell their stories. 1 a 5 month old pup who sadly died protecting a young girl from a snake and another who held off 2 men while she escaped in an area where there were 2 murder /rapes.

Steve,I understand that,and i am working on my own submission.Those who are supposedly speaking for "my group" are mostly pushing their own agendas ,often comercial ventures and D.Ds. The real stake holders are those that buy these dogs,whatever their source and most of them are blissfully unaware of all thats going on behind the scenes. They are the ones who happily sign cleverly worded petitions by Peta and welfare groups with out any understanding of what it all means to their choices and options. There are few avenues of engaging these people and opening their eyes to the real,broad picture.Their education in these matters is very limitted,though they often sign with the best of intentions. I am saying there needs to be ways these people can experience a broader view of pet ownership and where their dogs come from.The value of pedigree dogs etc. BTW a point worth mention is the "hybrid vigour" slogan trotted out by D.D breeders and refuted here lies some where between.Hybrid vigour is proven,but true hybrids are inter species,not with in species and are infertile mostly.Any hybrid vigour within species is nominal,but there only due to closed lines of pedigree animals and valid only in the 1st cross. At least thats been my understanding.A bit more discourse and less animosity between ALL groups can only benefit,surely. What I dont understand is why those who do have dogs and breed do not become members of these organisations so they are the majority membership instead of the PETA lunies? surely those who actually have the animals referred to should be the ones in this organisations so there are actually people who do know running them instead of the fanatics? its in dog and cat owners interests to be surely? Many of them are members of organisations,but the organisations themselves are polarised by the whole pure bred/cross bred thing,and this gives Peta type groups their ammo. Ordinary pet owners have no real encouragement to join in any organisation...Its just an added expense that brings no real bennefits to them.It won't allow them to do more with their own dogs,join competions or community fun days etc. There is no one working to solve that basic problem as far as i can see,and yet this is the group least informed and most likely to have unplanned litters.Or see big prices being asked for dogs and think to jump on the graveyy train with no real thought or understanding of what they are doing. In my own case,there is no organisation that fits.My dogs are working dogs,so "pet" registries are unsuited for many reasons,though they live more closely with their humans than most strictly pet dogs do.They are not herders who have their own registries for work purposes.I find myself with dogs that seem to be very unique in their qualities and no way to show that,or encourage research since working competions are closed to cross breeds in their field. I can and do have dogs training with huge success in their field,showing great ability and verstility that hasn't been seen in their dominant "breed" in years,but they are not permitted to compete for titles. I believe this is a great loss to pedigree breeders,who will not recognise the potential the breed was famous for,and could be acheived again because most will never see it demonstrated.

I don't believe its the majority who are being irresponsible. The irresponsible are the ones who draw notice and are very often repeat offenders.Some one who doesn't give a rats can cause a lot of damage all by themselves. On the whole,I think theres been a lot of improvement and could be a lot more if there was a bit of common community recognised in being a dog owner,full stop. There will always be cross breds,and a registration system will be needed to be a breeder. Seems a shame to me that there will be so many,all at each others throats over what it all means,when a common registry allowing for real competion, growth with the times,and common membership could be a uniting force with real teeth.

I know my research science.....which is why I point out that statistically one group of breeders (registered) stood out (in a scientific study) in how they tend to socialise their dogs and puppies well. Important, because as the same study points out, lack of early socialisation has a link with later aggression. 'Statistically' means there's a greater chance of a certain group of breeders (registered) socialising their animals well. It predicts nothing about individual breeders, tho'. So it does not mean that every breeder in that group socialises their dogs/puppies well. There will be those who do not. Also, statistically, breeders in another group (unregistered) were found, in the same study, to be less likely to socialise their dogs/puppies well. Once again, this predicts nothing about individual breeders in that group. So it does not mean that every breeder in this unregistered group does not socialise their dogs/puppies well. There will be those who do. What is highlighted is the critical importance of socialisation....whoever does it. And the information that registered breeders are more likely.....but not invariably so....to do it well. We have good examples from individuals who do it well. Clearest descriptions I've heard, are from Jed here on DOL & the member of the Rottweiler Club of Victoria on Radio National. As this is a purebred forum that supports purebred dogs, such examples make good models. Your comment suggesting it's being said that one group...meaning all members of that group... 'stand out as a better example' is not true. That would show lack of knowledge of statistics. Stats show trends within groups...and examples are shown by individuals (whoever they are). Exactly. So it seems Membership statisticaly improves out comes. How do we broaden membership to include all interests? The example of hybrid vigour was used to show how different sides present only 1 half of the truth to push their arguments,while both could bennefit from a broader knowledge. Definitely stop being defensive, and strutt your stuff! But involve others where possible,not just the ones already there.You know they are dwindling.There are other contributions to made outside of pedigree dogs,and that needs to be aknowledged.It holds back on credibility. Allow others to strutt their stuff too. Im certainly not preventing you or anyone from any group from strutting their stuff in fact it appears to me that the cross breeder mob have had a pretty fair shot at it and the reality is probably the only people who beat you up a bit are a dwindling number of purebred breeders.In the main that is happening because they have had to defend what they do because the method of promoting designer dogs has incorporated an attack on purebreds and their breeders. There may be contributions made outside of pedigreed dogs but my focus is only on pedigreed dogs and whilst Im eager to include dog owners regardless of what breed they own and bring in new pedigreed dog breeders,and Im happy for you to do your thing as long as you treat your dogs well - its a bit silly to suggest we would involve you if what you do is based on a different philosophy. Asking us to involve you is like asking the NRL to involve the AFL. Not a different philosphy at all,just different conclusions as how best to acheive them.My breed was bred for a task they can no longer be relied on to perform.If I could get the original,working pedigree dogs reliably,as I could 30 years ago? I would be rapt! One of the problems is that they have been "strutting their stuff" only with in their own circles and breeds for so long no one remembers what the breed was once capable of.A task in demand for all times,and they excelled. Now,they are measured only against their own,bred to a standard that allows no adaptation for the times and no focus on a purpose thats still relevant. To me,thats not development,thats stagnation of a once great gene pool.Theres no competition to remind us of whats realy relevent to that breeds success. My dogs live their purpose 24/7. I need a model that works. Most other breeds are in far better shape,I agree.There are too many that aren't tho'.No ones fault.Just a system thats not moved with changed circumstances and times. The generations of a dogs life are just long enough to forget what we had,but too quick to bring it back or find it again once lost. Moderm breeding practices as they stand,IMO,seem more intent on Illustrating a physical ideal,not demonstrating it. I am NOT against your philosphies,I applaud them.I just want them to succeed better and not lead to more dead ends. I also think that all parties need to be more open minded to each other and that tradition is not always worth preserving. This is too far off topic.I just wanted to show its doesn't have to be "us Vs them all the time.The sooner we can stop that,the better progress can made.

I don't know about others, but my local council does offer a rebate of sorts. I fail to see the difference between a discounted rego fee and a rebate for desexed animals. This also doesn't take into account the owners of large breed dogs in which a much later desexing is advised due to their extended growth period over say a chihuahua or small terrier. Or encourage pups to be chipped with breeders details.

I know my research science.....which is why I point out that statistically one group of breeders (registered) stood out (in a scientific study) in how they tend to socialise their dogs and puppies well. Important, because as the same study points out, lack of early socialisation has a link with later aggression. 'Statistically' means there's a greater chance of a certain group of breeders (registered) socialising their animals well. It predicts nothing about individual breeders, tho'. So it does not mean that every breeder in that group socialises their dogs/puppies well. There will be those who do not. Also, statistically, breeders in another group (unregistered) were found, in the same study, to be less likely to socialise their dogs/puppies well. Once again, this predicts nothing about individual breeders in that group. So it does not mean that every breeder in this unregistered group does not socialise their dogs/puppies well. There will be those who do. What is highlighted is the critical importance of socialisation....whoever does it. And the information that registered breeders are more likely.....but not invariably so....to do it well. We have good examples from individuals who do it well. Clearest descriptions I've heard, are from Jed here on DOL & the member of the Rottweiler Club of Victoria on Radio National. As this is a purebred forum that supports purebred dogs, such examples make good models. Your comment suggesting it's being said that one group...meaning all members of that group... 'stand out as a better example' is not true. That would show lack of knowledge of statistics. Stats show trends within groups...and examples are shown by individuals (whoever they are). Exactly. So it seems Membership statisticaly improves out comes. How do we broaden membership to include all interests? The example of hybrid vigour was used to show how different sides present only 1 half of the truth to push their arguments,while both could bennefit from a broader knowledge. Definitely stop being defensive, and strutt your stuff! But involve others where possible,not just the ones already there.You know they are dwindling.There are other contributions to made outside of pedigree dogs,and that needs to be aknowledged.It holds back on credibility. Allow others to strutt their stuff too.

Steve,I understand that,and i am working on my own submission.Those who are supposedly speaking for "my group" are mostly pushing their own agendas ,often comercial ventures and D.Ds. The real stake holders are those that buy these dogs,whatever their source and most of them are blissfully unaware of all thats going on behind the scenes. They are the ones who happily sign cleverly worded petitions by Peta and welfare groups with out any understanding of what it all means to their choices and options. There are few avenues of engaging these people and opening their eyes to the real,broad picture.Their education in these matters is very limitted,though they often sign with the best of intentions. I am saying there needs to be ways these people can experience a broader view of pet ownership and where their dogs come from.The value of pedigree dogs etc. BTW a point worth mention is the "hybrid vigour" slogan trotted out by D.D breeders and refuted here lies some where between.Hybrid vigour is proven,but true hybrids are inter species,not with in species and are infertile mostly.Any hybrid vigour within species is nominal,but there only due to closed lines of pedigree animals and valid only in the 1st cross. At least thats been my understanding.A bit more discourse and less animosity between ALL groups can only benefit,surely.